Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

Because, it's still relevant that's why. With the ongoing #Tariff Wars and mamsy pamsy nitpicking, I wanted to find out more about what types of
subsidies are given to support farming in America, how much and why it's failing so badly.

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a
67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by
Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to
individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "I don't agree with the government's
policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to
landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

This week, House Republicans passed
a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of
these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the
next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)

Ideology probably can't explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity
supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a
new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don't sunset
in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After
all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

Which leads to yet another unanswered question: What other unnecessary billions of tax payers $ is going to stuff like this?

Because, it's still relevant that's why. With the ongoing #Tariff Wars and mamsy pamsy nitpicking, I wanted to find out more about what types of
subsidies are given to support farming in America, how much and why it's failing so badly.

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a
67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by
Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to
individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "I don't agree with the government's
policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to
landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

This week, House Republicans passed
a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of
these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the
next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)

Ideology probably can't explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity
supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a
new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don't sunset
in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After
all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

Which leads to yet another unanswered question: What other unnecessary billions of tax payers $ is going to stuff like this?

special interest... farmers get used to accepting the subsidies and then if you try to cut it off, the industry will go apesh*t. The politicians
from those areas support it because the industry helps get them elected.

The government does have some role to ensure food security. All these payments are basically ransom to make sure the farmers do not take Americans
hostage with very high food prices by limiting supply. Why not just produce less and have prices much higher, leading to more profit for less work?
Without these government guarantees farmers will do just this.

How do you feel about taxpayer subsidies to Oil companies that already show obscene profits?

The corporate oligarchy will continue because they have the lobbyist, spend the most on their chosen politicians with campaign contributions and then
give the politicians sweet paid board positions when they retire.

Trump isn't going to change any of this and he gave the Corps additional tax breaks. He's a businessman remember?

If these subsidies went to help people who are farming to keep their ability to farm going, maybe we would do better. Farmers live on the edge of
bankruptsy year after year, one bad year can wipe out all their capital. We should be helping people to grow things, not to keep them from growing
things.

Big corporate farmers and producers of eggs and milk get most of the subsidies out there, rarely does a small farmer get anything and if they do it is
usually for something they do not need.

Because, it's still relevant that's why. With the ongoing #Tariff Wars and mamsy pamsy nitpicking, I wanted to find out more about what types of
subsidies are given to support farming in America, how much and why it's failing so badly.

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a
67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by
Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to
individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "I don't agree with the government's
policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to
landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

This week, House Republicans passed
a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of
these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the
next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)

Ideology probably can't explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity
supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a
new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don't sunset
in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After
all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

Which leads to yet another unanswered question: What other unnecessary billions of tax payers $ is going to stuff like this?

special interest... farmers get used to accepting the subsidies and then if you try to cut it off, the industry will go apesh*t. The politicians
from those areas support it because the industry helps get them elected.

I don't think the feds should be subsidizing any industry... period.

No, they should not. I think the industry went apesh*t several decades ago though, we're just getting wind of it now.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
The government does have some role to ensure food security. All these payments are basically ransom to make sure the farmers do not take Americans
hostage with very high food prices by limiting supply. Why not just produce less and have prices much higher, leading to more profit for less work?
Without these government guarantees farmers will do just this.

It's getting rather messy, and no one is willing to clean up the mess, except maybe Trump. I can see him doing something about it. No one else has in
decades. But prices in the USofA are far higher than some other Westernized Nations by far. And food wastage is sad, on a National level.

All the poor me farmers who I used to deal with, the sky is falling every year with them, live in a nice brick home, pool in the back yard, toys in
the garage and drive a brand new 4x4 pick em up pickup truck every year, poor farmers, bless their hearts...

Now we know. I'd like to know what else the Zillion Dollar Tax Payer Debt is going towards. 50 million towards Fake Clown School for fallen Dem
Political idealists? Or maybe Trigger Academy 101. I'm fairly sure a lot of that goes towards pool parties for the Billionaires when they need a month
off so they can dance around wearing animal costumes and deer heads.

He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved
by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

That comes out to a little over $100 a month. I bet this guy didn't even know, or really care about his subsidy when he bought the 18 acre plot. I'm
sure it hardly makes a difference to this guy's finances. But, $100 buys a lot of food for a family in need. It adds up, this government
misdirection of funds.

It is, yeah. I've read that many many farmers don't even collect subsidies, like you said, they probably don't know about it. There's got to be a huge
left over surplus, and then just owning land is enough to make anyone want to buy a plot. But in the 'billions'. That's highway robbery..

However, as a non-farming farm owner I must point out that if Mr. Matthews didn't want his direct payment subsidy, he shouldn't have applied for it.
The USDA doesn't send anyone money without having about half a boxcar full of paperwork being turned in to them.

Just registering your name as the owner of a farm brings volumes of pamphlets from the USDA with all the programs for which you can apply. Same with
the state Ag Dept.

The only direct payments that I as a non-farming farm owner receive are when crops fail due to weather conditions or we've done some significantly
expensive land improvements. That's because those are the only programs for which I've bothered to fill out the paperwork to get matching funds. My
farmer is old-school, he'd rather just do the right thing and absorb the costs than to send in reams of paper to prove to some bureaucrat that he's a
good farmer.

One of the things I hope Trump can do when he's slashing regulations is to change some of the stupid stuff the USDA adopted under the Obama
administration. For example, previously when I signed a power of attorney over farming to my farmer, that power of attorney was good until I revoked
it. About two years into the Obama administration the rules changed and now my farmer is required to obtain new documents each year from each of his
landowners. Then, a couple of years after that change, another one requires me to present my original deed at the local USDA when I turn in the power
of attorney in person. Several of his landowners don't even live in our state! It is absolutely insane.

He farms thousands of acres, acres that used to be farmed by 23 different families. He has to have a series of different "plans" for each individual
farm. We have a waterways plan, a crop rotation plan, a noxious weed eradication plan, a woodland plan, a "sharing with wildlife" plan and I'm sure
there are others. Those are usually five to ten-year plans but there is paperwork yearly to document that he's following his plans. I understand why
farmers are leaving the business.

Yes, he lives in a nice house and drives a nice truck but he also has two other businesses that support his farming habit. I don't know many farmers
that don't have a side-line business of some kind. Most importantly to me is that he treats my land like it was his own, attempting to nurture it
rather than manage it---a quality that no government bureaucrat could code into their computer.

If people that own land, don't farm.. what do you do with it? Is it there to safeguard for future Gov 'unbenownst to the land owners', to take later
on for I don't know, .. for the sake of it i'll toss in 'NWO' camps. I'm not really an expert in this area, so all I can do is speculate and
imagine.

However, as a non-farming farm owner I must point out that if Mr. Matthews didn't want his direct payment subsidy, he shouldn't have applied for it.
The USDA doesn't send anyone money without having about half a boxcar full of paperwork being turned in to them.

I believe that! I also believe some accountant or legal assistant is finding "whatever" to justify their salary!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.